Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-09300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Judge Schofield granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal a letter’s unredacted version to protect confidential business information.
The plaintiffs’ motion was granted, and the unredacted letter will remain inaccessible to the public. Only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix may access it.
What happened
In Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., the plaintiffs asked the court to seal portions of a letter. They filed the motion on July 21, 2020, and the defendants filed a supporting letter two days later.
The court explained that the public generally has a right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance public access against other concerns, including the need to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The unredacted letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals listed in an attached appendix may access it.
The detailed version
- Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:15-cv-09300
- Lorna Schofield
- July 24, 2020
Background
On July 21, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to seal portions of a letter. The defendants filed a letter supporting that motion on July 23, 2020.
Legal standard
The court stated that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly established but not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations, based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The court cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. for this standard.
Ruling
The court found that filing the letter in redacted form was necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. It therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. The unredacted version of the letter will remain sealed, and access is limited to the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.